How are men justified?

[The Barbarian]

Taking this and turning it into a moral lesson, or an ethical system--or worse, a question of soteriology, how are human beings saved, then that is itself deeply problematic. The problem isn't with the scientific observations of nature, the problem is with the wrong applications of those observations to moral philosophy or theology.

I wish I had said that. Precisely right.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, I specifically put it here because I'm trying to see how people reconcile evolution and justification by grace. Or even if they think that necessary.

There's nothing to reconcile. It would be like trying to reconcile the theory of the combustion engine with the doctrine of justification. That an internal combustion engine works by igniting a fuel source to move the inner workings of the machine, and thus can make gears move and wheels to pull a metal box along a road doesn't lead us to conclude that, for example, men are like cars who are pulled along by gas and gears.

Don't study a car's user's manual or a paper on the internal combustion engine, or look under the hood of your car if you want to understand how sinners are justified and reconciled to God--look to Jesus Christ, read and hear the Scriptures.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GenemZ]

It appears to me that debates about creation typically center around the first few chapters of Genesis. For that reason, it may not seem to be a very important debate. But I am concerned that the debate has more far-reaching implications than that. The question spans the entirety of scripture.

How are men justified?

There is at least the appearance of a major contradiction between the evolutionary answer to this question and the gospel answer to this question. If the primary driving factor behind the growth of mankind is survival of the fittest, according to genetic changes, then it appears to me that men are very much justified by merit. What is fitness but merit? It's certainly not a measure of faith, is it? If that were the case, it would depend more on who your family is than the attitude of your heart toward God.

On the contrary, it appears that the gospel answer "by grace through faith", is independent of any genetic factor. What can the evolutionist say: that God predestines immunity, strength, skill, and intellect into the ones he knows will be faithful? This does not seem evident in scripture. In fact, those who are more needy, more sick, poorer, and weaker - the very traits that one would think unlikely to promote survival - are the ones that God is more likely to choose. His strength is made clear in our weakness.

So how are men justified, and how do you reconcile your view with that of the whole of scripture?

It might be better to ask? Why are men needing to be told we have been justified?

We are on display before an invisible war constantly at battle with the Lord and fallen angels.

The Lord Jesus Christ as God is now in the process of making all his enemies into His footstool. At present, the fallen angels keep trying someway to find fault with the Lord's judgment in their hope and means for escaping the Lake of Fire. As we know. They shall fail in the end.

One big bugaboo with Satan. Satan demands to know why God will accept men as His own family, when many of these men at times act no better than fallen angels who are condemned. Its one reason Satan has been allowed access to heaven to accuse believers before God both day and night. Satan is very conscious of the sins of all believers whom he challenges God with.

The big question that Satan hates the real answer for? What's the difference? Why were we rejected when we can at times act just as moral as believers do?

Well...

Fallen angels can act pious and religious in mentality, like many religions of the world reveal in the actions of their followers. The religious can be very moral in behavior, like the Pharisees were. Tibetan monks can be highly moral in character. But, God says that won't save a man.

So what justifies believers before God?

Satan to the Lord:

What justifies your acceptance of men who still at times can act like a fallen angel who is condemned?

The Lord to Satan: The one thing a fallen angels can not have? "Faith!"

We are justified by faith before God and angels, by having faith!

"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and to will be saved!"
Acts 16:30-31​

Satan loses every time. Satan can not produce faith in any man he tries to perfect in order to compete with God against God's own people! No faith to be found. Satan can only create delusion in his followers. God's faith is having a belief in something that is real but not always seen. Delusion is simply having a belief in a lie.

That is why God declares a Christian is justified by faith. And, if we are actively believing what our faith tells us? Our faith is then alive. When needed we will act upon our faith and produce works according to the faith we possess.

Since we have been justified by faith onto salvation? We believed in Jesus Christ and were saved? God after our salvation wants us to be on display before all the angels to be acting upon our faith, to show our trust in God, not Satan and the world.

That way of life in the Spirit requires that we are to keep growing in our faith and understanding. To keep maturing in faith as we mature in our humanity with its ever changing needs.

"But continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory, now and forever! Amen. "
2 Pet 3:18​

Continuously growing in our knowledge of God's Word? And, by that growth? Will be made able by the Spirit to be producing more and more works as a way of life from our transformed mind. Transformed because of the base of our growing knowledge of Scriptures we are to be always adding to as we grow in faith! Ritual and tradition alone kills off that process. One can not stand still in growing.

Faith is accepting understanding and believing our knowledge learned from the Word!

"So then faith comes by hearing (comprehension)
.. and hearing by the word of God."

(Rom 10:17)​

grace and peace .........

 

[Wayne Gabler]

It appears to me that debates about creation typically center around the first few chapters of Genesis. For that reason, it may not seem to be a very important debate. But I am concerned that the debate has more far-reaching implications than that. The question spans the entirety of scripture.

How are men justified?

There is at least the appearance of a major contradiction between the evolutionary answer to this question and the gospel answer to this question. If the primary driving factor behind the growth of mankind is survival of the fittest, according to genetic changes, then it appears to me that men are very much justified by merit. What is fitness but merit? It's certainly not a measure of faith, is it? If that were the case, it would depend more on who your family is than the attitude of your heart toward God.

On the contrary, it appears that the gospel answer "by grace through faith", is independent of any genetic factor. What can the evolutionist say: that God predestines immunity, strength, skill, and intellect into the ones he knows will be faithful? This does not seem evident in scripture. In fact, those who are more needy, more sick, poorer, and weaker - the very traits that one would think unlikely to promote survival - are the ones that God is more likely to choose. His strength is made clear in our weakness.

So how are men justified, and how do you reconcile your view with that of the whole of scripture?

Creation first. What was created in Ge: was 3 species of flesh that Adam was given dominion over. Flesh that flies, flesh that swims, and flesh that walks on dry land. Each pasture is slightly different, so the flesh that live there are also slightly different. What will never happen is a species cross-over. Whales are birds that learned to 'fly in water' over 4M years, that is as close as it gets to species jumping.

Justification is by being sons and daughters of Adam and Eve (5-fingered people) The ones alive for the 1,000 years are the people who would have been alive if sin had not entered the world. All the ones still in the grave are the ones that died before they could be gathered, they are gathered last rather than they are 'lost':
Isa:54:1:
Sing,
O barren,
thou that didst not bear;
break forth into singing,
and cry aloud,
thou that didst not travail with child:
for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife,
saith the LORD.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It might be better to ask? Why are men needing to be told we have been justified?

Because men are sinners and need to hear the Gospel.

Matthew 28:19
Mark 16:15
Luke 24:46-47
Romans 1:16-17
Romans 10:14-17

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Suggestion Box]

@ViaCrucis :

Before I continue, please clarify something: do you believe human evolution is ongoing even at present, or did it stop at some point in the past?

 

[ViaCrucis]

@ViaCrucis :

Before I continue, please clarify something: do you believe human evolution is ongoing even at present, or did it stop at some point in the past?

People still have babies. So, obviously, it's still happening.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Barbarian]

Before I continue, please clarify something: do you believe human evolution is ongoing even at present, or did it stop at some point in the past?

Yeah, it's still happening. CryptoLutheran has it right.

 

[Suggestion Box]

Building an ethical system off of natural observations isn't a great idea. It's demonstrably true that populations of organisms that are able to pass on their genes to the next generation are biologically successful. But that has nothing to do with ethics. If you have two types of finches, both eat nuts but one also supplements their diet with bugs, and if a tree parasite comes along and wipes out the nut trees from the environment, both finches will suffer, but the finches that eat bugs will have a better chance to survive. That's what "survival of the fittest" means. The finches didn't have some kind of "merit", they simply were able to adapt to the changes in their environment better than the other group of finches who couldn't. And so one group of finches survives by eating and reproducing, and the other group may die off because there isn't enough food to sustain themselves.

There isn't a lesson in morality to be gained from this. It is purely an observation that some populations survive better than others given the circumstances of their environment.

Taking this and turning it into a moral lesson, or an ethical system--or worse, a question of soteriology, how are human beings saved, then that is itself deeply problematic. The problem isn't with the scientific observations of nature, the problem is with the wrong applications of those observations to moral philosophy or theology.

After all, if there is a drought and food becomes scarce, we don't blame the sky for not sending rain and then say that the sky leads men to bad behavior if they begin to fight over food resources. The problem behind men competing over food resources is sin, we are broken creatures plagued by the stain of original sin and living in a fallen world in which there is suffering, death, disease, etc. We don't look to nature, but to the revelation we have received from God in Christ Jesus our Lord. That we are sinners and in need of redemption, and that the promise of God in Christ is that He who bore our sin and shame on the cross reconciles us to God, and by His glorious resurrection has defeated and conquered the tyranny of sin, death, hell, and the devil. And even as God has raised up Christ, so shall He raise us up on the Last Day, and God will make all things new.

-CryptoLutheran

Merit may be the wrong word for what I'm describing. I'm saying that the strong appear to dominate the weak, but in the long run they don't, because God intervenes. And for strength, you can substitute any other genetic trait that makes one group "better able to adapt to changes in the environment" (Batatcite*. I'm going to call that a Batatcite gene, just for brevity's sake). So instead of "men are not justified by merit", I should say "men are not justified by genetic traits which make them better-able to adapt to changes in their environment". Men are not justified by their Batatcite genes.

Now, you're saying that if some finches die out it's not because they were less ethical. It was because of their Batatcite genes. Agreed. With finches, it's not a matter of ethics - because finches aren't morally responsible (or are they? don't answer - it's another question entirely, and not for this thread. I'll acquiesce). But we're not talking about finches, we're talking about humans. If we apply the same example to humans, but maybe change the specifics to make sense for humans... why did one group of humans die out and the other prevail?

God chooses who lives and who dies among humans (evidence available upon request). Death is not always an indicator of who is justified or who is saved, but often times it is, depending on the circumstances. For instance, if he chooses that his saints should die as martyrs in the gulags, then they are very much justified by faith, and very much saved. But if he brings plauge after plauge on Egypt because of their refusal to obey his command, and then kills them in the waters of the Red Sea, it is likely that their death is punishment, and that they were destined for destruction, and are not justified, and are not saved - in spite of their strength. In the case of Goliath, I do not think he was justified. In the case of the wicked and powerful men portrayed in many of the Psalms, who meet their end when God punishes them, I do not think they are justified or saved - in spite of their strength. If they die in this life by punishment, because they clearly do not trust God, and have no faith is his Word, which is Christ, and prove it by oppressing the weak, then I think that this death is a fair indicator of their eternal resting place as well.

Which groups of humans prevail under natural pressures is, in many cases, an ethical question. Not just because of their own decisions, but because of God's decision. He very well may choose one people group over another because of its ethical fortitude and not because of its genes. Or he may choose one group because of his promise to their ancestor - not because of any Batatcite gene (or was David chosen because he was genetically Batatcite?), but merely because of His promise. In fact I can't think of one single example where God uses Batatcite genes to decide which groups of humans live and which ones die.

So I think, among humans, when we know God is in control of nature and uses it to punish people - we can't separate nature and ethics. There is definite overlap.


(By the way, sorry about the distracting acronym... I can't help taking myself less than seriously...)

 

[The Barbarian]

Which groups of humans prevail under natural pressures is, in many cases, an ethical question. Not just because of their own decisions, but because of God's decision. He very well may choose one people group over another because of its ethical fortitude and not because of its genes.

Darwin first provided a scientific explanation for this in The Descent of Man.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Merit may be the wrong word for what I'm describing. I'm saying that the strong appear to dominate the weak, but in the long run they don't, because God intervenes. And for strength, you can substitute any other genetic trait that makes one group "better able to adapt to changes in the environment" (Batatcite*. I'm going to call that a Batatcite gene, just for brevity's sake). So instead of "men are not justified by merit", I should say "men are not justified by genetic traits which make them better-able to adapt to changes in their environment". Men are not justified by their Batatcite genes.

Now, you're saying that if some finches die out it's not because they were less ethical. It was because of their Batatcite genes. Agreed. With finches, it's not a matter of ethics - because finches aren't morally responsible (or are they? don't answer - it's another question entirely, and not for this thread. I'll acquiesce). But we're not talking about finches, we're talking about humans. If we apply the same example to humans, but maybe change the specifics to make sense for humans... why did one group of humans die out and the other prevail?

God chooses who lives and who dies among humans (evidence available upon request). Death is not always an indicator of who is justified or who is saved, but often times it is, depending on the circumstances. For instance, if he chooses that his saints should die as martyrs in the gulags, then they are very much justified by faith, and very much saved. But if he brings plauge after plauge on Egypt because of their refusal to obey his command, and then kills them in the waters of the Red Sea, it is likely that their death is punishment, and that they were destined for destruction, and are not justified, and are not saved - in spite of their strength. In the case of Goliath, I do not think he was justified. In the case of the wicked and powerful men portrayed in many of the Psalms, who meet their end when God punishes them, I do not think they are justified or saved - in spite of their strength. If they die in this life by punishment, because they clearly do not trust God, and have no faith is his Word, which is Christ, and prove it by oppressing the weak, then I think that this death is a fair indicator of their eternal resting place as well.

Which groups of humans prevail under natural pressures is, in many cases, an ethical question. Not just because of their own decisions, but because of God's decision. He very well may choose one people group over another because of its ethical fortitude and not because of its genes. Or he may choose one group because of his promise to their ancestor - not because of any Batatcite gene (or was David chosen because he was genetically Batatcite?), but merely because of His promise. In fact I can't think of one single example where God uses Batatcite genes to decide which groups of humans live and which ones die.

So I think, among humans, when we know God is in control of nature and uses it to punish people - we can't separate nature and ethics. There is definite overlap.


(By the way, sorry about the distracting acronym... I can't help taking myself less than seriously...)

The ability to digest lactose evolved in some human populations, and so some people can digest dairy, while many others are lactose intolerant. Is it more moral to digest dairy products or is it more moral to be lactose intolerant?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Barbarian]

The ability to digest lactose evolved in some human populations, and so some people can digest dairy, while many others are lactose intolerant. Is it more moral to digest dairy products or is it more moral to be lactose intolerant?

-CryptoLutheran

Today's winner

 

[GenemZ]

The ability to digest lactose evolved in some human populations, and so some people can digest dairy, while many others are lactose intolerant. Is it more moral to digest dairy products or is it more moral to be lactose intolerant?

-CryptoLutheran

Lactose intolerant business men are more moral.

When setting prices? They won't try to 'milk you.'

 

[Suggestion Box]

The ability to digest lactose evolved in some human populations, and so some people can digest dairy, while many others are lactose intolerant. Is it more moral to digest dairy products or is it more moral to be lactose intolerant?

-CryptoLutheran

It is more moral to be God. Lactose and non-lactose alike are sinful and deserve death and hell. Some of them died as they deserve - not for the lactose, but for the worship of idols, the murder of humans, and rebelling against God. Perhaps God used a great famine to destroy this group and leave a small remnant. If most of that remnant happened to have a gene for digesting lactose, great - but that's not why they survived. The remnant was spared, not for their strength of stomach, but because of God's mercy, love, grace, and desire to see his own plan come to fruition.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

So, a real, literal Adam, the federal head of all mankind, made a covenant with God and then broke it, having full understanding of the problem and magnitude of his action. How is it that evolution has just one human and he just so happens to be that well informed and that capable?

Yes, I do believe there was a real, literal Adam. I also believe that he lived about 6,000 years ago, more or less. And, yes, I believe he was the federal head of all mankind, and that he probably understood the significance and ramifications of that role. But it was not Adam who made a covenant with God. That is backwards. It was God who established a covenant relationship, and not with Adam alone but rather all mankind through Adam, whom God chose as our federal head. And, yes, I believe Adam broke that covenant through an informed choice. (At least one, anyway, though I detect a number of sins he committed.)

But he was not alone. He was not the only human. By most estimates there were several million humans living throughout the earth 6,000 years ago. I mean, we're talking about roughly the same historical period as Ötzi, "the Iceman" from Italy. Jericho was even a walled city 3,000 years prior to that. Humans had been around for a very long time by the time we reach the events of the garden of Eden.

Who created Adam? The cave man? God?

There were no cave men 6,000 years ago (Cro-Magnons, or Early European modern humans). That's off by an order of magnitude. But, yes, of course God created Adam. He creates every single person, including me and you.

I haven't settled the question for myself yet, whether Adam was born to parents or created de novo by God. However, since Joshua Swamidass has shown that it makes no difference either way, I'm not in a rush to settle that question. At this point, though, I lean toward him being born. (And since that was roughly 6,000 years ago, his parents would be entirely human.)

Who informed him and gave him his sinless, perfect, deathless garden of Eden start? The cave man? A hominid?

Again, we're talking 6,000 years ago. There were only Homo sapiens around.

And God gave Adam that blessed garden in Eden (but we might disagree on what "perfect" and "deathless" meant).

The Bible says [Adam] was a sinless being created by God from the dust of the ground.

I agree that Adam was sinless from the establishment of the covenant until he fell, but the fact is that everyone is created by God from the dust of the ground.

Evolution claims [Adam] evolved from prior hominids.

Incorrect. Populations evolve, not individual organisms.

Moreover, (the science of) evolution has nothing to say—because it can't—about specific individuals living thousands of years ago. For that, we must rely on historical records.

One of those origins gives you a fully informed sinless being in Eden, the other does not.

Correction: The other cannot.

The entire narrative in these early chapters of Genesis is about the dawn of redemptive history. That's theology, not science.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I agree that these meritorious attributes are irrelevant toward salvation.

Good, but I hope you can also agree that such things are not meritorious at all (which refers to "being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward"). Human populations reproducing and flourishing is irrelevant vis-à-vis justification before God (which is an entirely theological subject matter).

Maybe you could say that they're only relevant towards earthly things and not toward salvation, but then you're dividing up the spiritual and earthly realms more than I am comfortable with.

Not any more than apostolic teaching does (e.g., those who are of the earth versus those who are of heaven, or those who live according to the flesh versus those who live according to the Spirit, and so on). But, even more fundamentally, I am dividing up fields of inquiry—Scripture and theology on the one hand, nature and science on the other. Justification pertains to the former, evolution to the latter.

What happens here affects what happens there and vice-versa.

Indeed. And that is a theological statement unrelated to evolutionary biology.

The trend we see every day—that the fit survive and outlast the unfit—is actually not the driving force behind change.

Correct. Changes are the driving force behind fitness.

Merit may be the wrong word for what I'm describing. I'm saying that the strong appear to dominate the weak, ...

Not absolutely or necessarily. It's not always the strongest, fastest, or smartest that are fittest. Sometimes it's the weakest that is more fit, such as having great camouflage which eludes a much stronger predator.

... but in the long run they don't, because God intervenes.

That answers a theological question, but not a scientific one.

Instead of, "Men are not justified by merit," I should say, "Men are not justified by genetic traits which make them better able to adapt to changes in their environment."

Correct, because justification before God has no genetic or biological basis. We are justified by grace through redemption in Christ Jesus. Human strength, skill, or intelligence is irrelevant because grace is UNMERITED.

Why did one group of humans die out and the other prevail?

Do we have any reason to think it was due to justification before God?

God chooses who lives and who dies among humans ...

Agreed.

Death is not always an indicator of who is justified or who is saved, but often times it is, depending on the circumstances. For instance, if he chooses that his saints should die as martyrs in the gulags, then they are very much justified by faith, and very much saved. But if he brings plague after plague on Egypt because of their refusal to obey his command, and then kills them in the waters of the Red Sea, it is likely that their death is punishment and they were destined for destruction, and are not justified, and are not saved—in spite of their strength. In the case of Goliath, I do not think he was justified. In the case of the wicked and powerful men portrayed in many of the Psalms who meet their end when God punishes them, I do not think they are justified or saved—in spite of their strength. If they die in this life by punishment because they clearly do not trust God and have no faith is his word, which is Christ, and prove it by oppressing the weak, then I think that this death is a fair indicator of their eternal resting place as well.

Exactly. So, you cannot draw any theological conclusions from this population going extinct or that one surviving. The answer is found in God, which is theology. As you said elsewhere, "Perhaps God used a great famine to destroy this group and leave a small remnant. If most of that remnant happened to have a gene for digesting lactose, great—but that's not why they survived. The remnant was spared, not for their strength of stomach, but because of God's mercy, love, grace, and desire to see his own plan come to fruition."

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is more moral to be God. Lactose and non-lactose alike are sinful and deserve death and hell. Some of them died as they deserve - not for the lactose, but for the worship of idols, the murder of humans, and rebelling against God. Perhaps God used a great famine to destroy this group and leave a small remnant. If most of that remnant happened to have a gene for digesting lactose, great - but that's not why they survived. The remnant was spared, not for their strength of stomach, but because of God's mercy, love, grace, and desire to see his own plan come to fruition.

Let me reiterate a point I made earlier. A naturalistic observation has no bearing on morality or ethics.

A population of organisms that survives because it can survive does not mean that population is morally better. Nor should we assume it means that God favors that population over another.

Even outside of natural selection, and describing other things, for example:
The widespread death of indigenous peoples in the Americas from disease brought over by Europeans, and the genocidal campaigns of European conquerors does not demonstrate a morality of the conqueror, nor does it demonstrate that God has played favorites with the conqueror.

It merely demonstrates that this world is a world that is fallen, plagued by death and sin. This is a world in which natural evils such as natural disasters and disease exist, and this is a world in which human beings are sinful and engage in horrible acts of sinful violence against other human beings.

Our justification is by God's grace alone, on Christ's account. It is Jesus Christ who suffered and died for our sins, who died our death, and who rose from the dead defeating sin, death, hell, and the devil. So our justification before God is found exclusively in God's saving work in Jesus Christ, and Him alone. There is no justification for men in their works, there is no justification for men in their power, there is no justification for men in their survival as a species, in the survival of their societies, in the survival of their civilizations.

We are sinners. Our societies are sinful societies. Our civilizations are structures of power and violence which demonstrate, through the long continuum of history, that we are fallen, broken, and in need of the grace and salvation that is found in Jesus Christ alone.

If you are trying to find the Gospel in natural selection, stop. If you are trying to find the Gospel in structures of power, or in human works, or in any artifice of human design--stop. There is only one name given by which men can be saved, and that is Jesus Christ.

Stop trying to find God elsewhere, because you won't find Him. You will find God in His Son, who gave His life for you. Look to Jesus alone for justification, redemption, salvation, grace, hope, and mercy. Anything else is a death trap.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Suggestion Box]

A population of organisms that survives because it can survive does not mean that population is morally better. Nor should we assume it means that God favors that population over another.

I cannot understand why you repeatedly say that I'm making that claim. From the very beginning I have done the opposite. From the OP:

In fact, those who are more needy, more sick, poorer, and weaker - the very traits that one would think unlikely to promote survival - are the ones that God is more likely to choose. His strength is made clear in our weakness.

I am not saying that God chooses one group over another because they are more moral. It's to display His glory. He often chooses the weaker group, not because they are more moral, but because they were the least expected. He wants people to see that it was Him, God, and not the strength of men, that won the victory. That's why he slimmed Gideon's ranks down to only 300. That's why he chose David, the youngest of his brothers, who couldn't even fit in armor. That's why children are first in the kingdom of heaven, and the expert scribes are last.

The remnant was spared, not for their strength of stomach, but because of God's mercy, love, grace, and desire to see his own plan come to fruition.

By your reply, you'd think I had said "The remnant was spared because of their strength of stomach, a very moral quality." You're acting as if I'm saying the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

Perhaps it was this that I said:

He very well may choose one people group over another because of its ethical fortitude and not because of its genes.

I said this because God at least sometimes does choose the good guys over the bad guys in a dispute. Now that I look, it's explicitly stated in scripture. There's a whole Psalm devoted to this topic. Psalms 18. Specifically look at Psalms 18:20-24:

20 The Lord has dealt with me according to my righteousness;
according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me.
21 For I have kept the ways of the Lord;
I am not guilty of turning from my God.
22 All his laws are before me;
I have not turned away from his decrees.
23 I have been blameless before him
and have kept myself from sin.
24 The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness,
according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.

The overlap between ethics and nature is not a matter of people surviving because of merit. That's my whole point in this whole thread. When I say "merit" in the OP, I am really not talking about people doing good things. I am talking about genetic "merit", and I am sorry this has caused so much confusion. It's the kind of "merit" where you think you deserve something because of your good genetic traits, not the kind of merit where you think you deserve something because you are blameless in the sight of God. But as @DialecticSkeptic shows, perhaps inadvertently...

Human strength, skill, or intelligence is irrelevant because grace is UNMERITED.

... sometimes people do use the word "merit" to refer to human strength, skill, or intelligence - the word is not purely reserved for discourse about ethics. Another example of this is in H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds.

Spoiler

But by virtue of this natural selection of our kind we have developed resisting-power; to no germs do we succumb without a struggle, and to many—those that cause putrefaction in dead matter, for instance—our living frames are altogether immune. -p210

Here the author uses the word "virtue" similar to how I'm trying to apply the word "merit". I think this use is acceptable. It's the idea that one can be proud of himself for all the hard work his genes had to do all this time.

I am not saying that the ones who prevail do so because of their own good actions. (Although the ones who die very well may die because of their bad actions. Deuteronomy 9:4). They prevail because of God's actions. It's not a matter of God picking between moral and immoral people. If anything, I was kind of wondering if TE's believed that God was doing this through evolution... selecting moral people. But it appears that's not the case, at least for the two of you, so thank you both for clarifying that so abundantly.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

When I say merit in the [original post], I am really not talking about people doing good things. I am talking about ... the kind of "merit" where you think you deserve something because of your good genetic traits, ...

Your original question asked, "How are men justified?" According to your clarification here, it seems that perhaps your question should have been, "How do men justify themselves?" While people look to themselves and judge by appearance (i.e., good genetic traits), "God does not view things the way men do. People look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7). So, people might justify themselves in this way—"you think you deserve something"—but God judges differently.

How are men justified? Not by their genetics. It is by the grace of God, which by definition is unmerited (i.e., good genes merit nothing before God).

It's not a matter of God picking between moral and immoral people. If anything, I was kind of wondering if [theistic evolutionists] believed that God was doing this through evolution (selecting moral people).

Well, since there are no inherently moral people—we are all sinners—God picks between immoral and immoral people. It is those whom he picks that have been "created in Christ Jesus for good works" which God prepared in advance for us to do (Ephesians 2:10).

All these answers are entirely consistent with (but not derived from) evolutionary science.

 

[Suggestion Box]

How are men justified? Not by their genetics. It is by the grace of God, which by definition is unmerited (i.e., good genes merit nothing before God).

Alright! I'm glad we have established this.

Men are not justified by their genetics.
Thus God does not justify them by genetics.
Thus God does not call them just or unjust according to genetics.

So God doesn't determine who lives and who dies according to genetics, right? He makes this decision independently of genetics?